Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 199–212 | Cite as

Fragmented landscapes, habitat specificity, and conservation genetics of three lizards in Florida scrub

  • Lyn C. BranchEmail author
  • A.-M. Clark
  • P.E. Moler
  • B.W. Bowen
Article

Abstract

Dry, sandy scrub habitats of the Floridapeninsula represent naturally fragmentedremnants of xeric ecosystems that werewidespread during the Pliocene and earlyPleistocene. This habitat is characterized byhigh endemism, and distribution of genetic andevolutionary diversity among scrub ``islands'' isof compelling interest because Florida scrub israpidly disappearing under human development. We compare range-wide diversity inmitochondrial cytochrome b sequences forthree scrub-associated lizards with contrastinglevels of habitat specificity. All speciesshow strong geographic partitioning of geneticdiversity, supporting the hypothesis that scrubfauna is highly restricted by vicariantseparations. The mole skink (Eumecesegregius), the least habitat specific, has thelowest phylogeographic structure among thelizards (Φst = 0.631). The mtDNAgeneology for E. egregius is not entirelyconcordant with the five recognized subspeciesand supports a link between populations incentral Florida (E. e. lividus) and theFlorida Keys (E.e. egregius) rather thana previously proposed affiliation betweennorthern and southern populations. The Floridascrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) is themost habitat specific of the lizards and hasthe strongest phylogeographic structure (Φst = 0.876). The sand skink (Neosepsreynoldsi) falls between the moleskink and scrub lizard in terms of habitatspecificity and phylogeographic structure (Φst = 0.667). For all three species,networks of mtDNA haplotypes coalesce on twocentral ridges that contain the oldest scrub. The geographic structure and deep evolutionarylineages observed in these species have strongimplications for conservation, includingstrategies for translocation, reserve design,and management of landscape connectivity.

Eumeces Florida scrub habitat fragmentation mitochondrial DNA Neoseps phylogeography Sceloporus skinks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amos B, Hoelzel AR (1991) Long-term preservation of whale skin for DNA analysis. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue, 13, 99–103.Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC (1992) Molecular population structure and the biogeographic history of a regional fauna: A case history with lessons for conservation biology. Oikos, 63, 62–76.Google Scholar
  3. Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: The History and Formation of Species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Bermingham E, Avise JC (1986) Molecular zoogeography of freshwater fishes in the southeastern United States. Genetics, 113, 939–965.Google Scholar
  5. Bowen BW (1998) What is wrong with ESUs? The gap between evolutionary theory and conservation principles. Journal of Shellfish Research, 17, 1355–1358.Google Scholar
  6. Bowen BW, Avise JC (1990) Genetic structure of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico populations of sea bass, menhaden, and sturgeon: Influence of zoogeographic factors and life-history patterns. Marine Biology, 107, 371–381.Google Scholar
  7. Christman SP (1980) Patterns of geographic variation in Florida snakes. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences, 25, 157–256.Google Scholar
  8. Christman SP (1992a) Sand skink. In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. III Amphibians and Reptiles (ed. Moler PE), pp. 135–140. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  9. Christman SP (1992b) Bluetail mole skink. In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. III Amphibians and Reptiles (ed. Moler PE), pp. 117–122. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  10. Christman SP (1992c) Florida Keys mole skink. In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. III Amphibians and Reptiles (ed. Moler PE), pp. 178–180. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. Clark AM, Bowen BW, Branch LC (1999) Effects of natural habitat fragmentation on an endemic scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi): An historical perspective based on a mitochondrial DNA gene genealogy. Molecular Ecology, 8, 1093–1104.Google Scholar
  12. Demarco V (1992) Florida scrub lizard. In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. III Amphibians and Reptiles (ed. Moler PE), pp. 141–145. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  13. Deyrup M (1989) Arthropods endemic to Florida scrub. Florida Scientist, 52, 254–270.Google Scholar
  14. Deyrup M (1996) Two new grasshoppers from relict uplands of Florida (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 122, 199–211.Google Scholar
  15. Dodd Jr CK, Seigel RA (1991) Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica, 47, 336–350.Google Scholar
  16. Enge KM, Bentzien MM, Percival HF (1986) Florida Scrub Lizard Status Survey. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Report No. 26, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial restriction data. Genetics, 131, 479–491.Google Scholar
  18. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39, 783–791.Google Scholar
  19. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science, 245, 477–480.Google Scholar
  20. Hillis DM, Mable BK, Larson A, Davis SK, Zimmer EA (1996) Nucleic Acids IV: sequencing and cloning. In: Molecular Systematics (eds. Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK), pp. 321–381.Google Scholar
  21. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Hokit DG, Stith BM, Branch LC (1999) The effect of landscape structure in Florida scrub: A population perspective. Ecological Applications, 9, 124–134.Google Scholar
  22. Huck RB, Judd WS, Whitten WM, Skean Jr JD, Wunderlin RP, Delaney KR (1989) A new Dicerandra (Labiatae) from the Lake Wales Ridge of Florida, with a cladistic analysis and discussion of endemism. Systematic Botany, 14, 197–213.Google Scholar
  23. Humphrey SR, Eisenberg JF, Franz R (1985) Possibilities for restoring wildlife of a longleaf pine savanna in an abandoned citrus grove. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 487–496.Google Scholar
  24. Irwin DM, Kocher TD, Alison AC (1991) Evolution of the cytochrome b gene of animals. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 32, 128–144.Google Scholar
  25. Jackson JF (1973) Distribution and population phenetics of the Florida scrub lizard, Sceloporus woodi. Copeia, 1973, 746–761.Google Scholar
  26. Kessing B, Croom H, Martin A, McIntosh C, McMillan WO, Palumbi S (1989) The Simple Fool's Guide to PCR. Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  27. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 16, 111–129.Google Scholar
  28. Kocher TD, Thomas WK, Meyer A, Edwards SV, Pääbo S, Villablanca FX, Wilson AC (1989) Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86, 6196–6200.Google Scholar
  29. Mayr E (1970) Populations, Species, and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. McConkey EH (1957) The subspecies of Eumeces egregius, a lizard of the southeastern United States. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 2, 13–23.Google Scholar
  31. McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (1992) Rarity of organisms in the sand pine scrub habitat of Florida. Conservation Biology, 6, 537–548.Google Scholar
  32. McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (1994) Effects of fragmentation on the richness of vertebrates in the Florida scrub habitat. Ecology, 75, 446–457.Google Scholar
  33. McCoy ED, Sutton PE, Mushinksy HR (1999) The role of guesswork in conserving the threatened sand skink. Conservation Biology, 13, 190–194.Google Scholar
  34. McDonald DB, Hamrick JL (1996) Genetic variation in some plants of Florida scrub. American Journal of Botany, 83, 21–27.Google Scholar
  35. Moritz C (1994) Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: A critical review. Molecular Ecology, 3, 403–413.Google Scholar
  36. Moritz C, Faith DP (1998) Comparative phylogeography and the identification of genetically divergent areas for conservation. Molecular Ecology, 7, 419–430.Google Scholar
  37. Mount RH (1963) The natural history of the red-tailed skink, Eumeces egregius (Baird). American Midland Naturalist, 70, 365–385.Google Scholar
  38. Mount RH (1965) Variation and systematics of the scincoid lizard, Eumeces egregius (Baird). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 9, 183–213.Google Scholar
  39. Mount RH (1968) Eumeces egregius (Baird). Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, 73, 1–2.Google Scholar
  40. Nei M (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 124–128.Google Scholar
  42. Rocha LA, Bass AL, Robertson DR, Bowen BW (2002) Adult habitat preferences, larval dispersal, and the comparative phylogeography of three Atlantic surgeonfishes (Teleostei: Acanthuridae). Molecular Ecology, 11, 243–252.Google Scholar
  43. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor joining-method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4, 406–425.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) Arlequin, Version 2000: A Software for Population Genetics Data Analyses. Genetics and Biometry Lab, University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  45. Smith LL, Franz R, Dodd Jr CK (1993) Additions to the herpetofauna of Egmont Key, Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Scientist, 56, 231–234.Google Scholar
  46. Storfer A (1999) Gene flow and endangered species translocations: A topic revisited. Biological Conservation, 87, 173–180.Google Scholar
  47. Sutton PE, Mushinsky HR, McCoy ED (1999) Comparing the use of pitfall drift fences and cover boards for sampling the threatened sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi). Herpetological Review, 30, 149–151.Google Scholar
  48. Swofford DL (2000) PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 3.1.1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  49. Taylor EH (1935) A taxonomic study of the cosmopolitan scincoid lizards of the genus Eumeces, with an account of the distribution and relationship of the species. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 23, 1–643.Google Scholar
  50. Tiebout III HM, Anderson RA (1997) A comparison of corridors and intrinsic connectivity to promote dispersal in transient successional landscapes. Conservation Biology, 11, 620–627.Google Scholar
  51. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1987) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of the threatened status for two Florida lizards. Federal Register, 52, 42658–42662.Google Scholar
  52. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1991) Preliminary Project Proposal: Proposed Establishment of Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  53. Vrijenhoek RC (1989) Population genetics and conservation. In: Conservation for the Twenty-First Century (eds. Pearl M, Western D), pp. 89–98. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Walker D, Avise JC (1998) Principles of phylogeography as illustrated by freshwater and terrestrial turtles in the southeastern United States. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 23–58.Google Scholar
  55. Waples RS (1991) Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of a “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review, 53, 11–22.Google Scholar
  56. Waples RS (1995) Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. In: Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem (eds. Nielsen JL, Powers DA), pp. 8–27, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  57. Watts WA, Hansen BCS (1988) Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In: Wet Site Archaeology (ed. Purdy BA), pp. 307–323. The Telford Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  58. Webb SD (1990) Historical biogeography. In: Ecosystems of Florida (eds. Meyers RL, Ewel JJ), pp. 70–102. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyn C. Branch
    • 1
    Email author
  • A.-M. Clark
    • 2
  • P.E. Moler
    • 3
  • B.W. Bowen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.BEECS Genetic Analysis Core, 421 Carr HallUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Hawaii Institute of Marine BiologyUniversity of HawaiiKaneoheUSA

Personalised recommendations